- Joined
- Aug 13, 2005
- Messages
- 19,240
- Reaction score
- 12,767
Re: Light recieved a fair offer which he refused
I think it's interesting that the only thing we previously heard about Matt Light's contract was that the two sides agreed months ago to wait until there was a new CBA before working on a new deal. Now that we're apparently on the doorstep of a new CBA, news comes out that the Pats made an offer and Light turned it down?
If Light goes out, bright talent steps in - The Boston Globe
I realize those two things are not mutually exclusive - perhaps the two sides were negotiating, couldn't come to terms, and then both agreed to wait until the new CBA was in place rather than to continue negotiating. However, I do find it odd that we only find out now that an offer was previously placed on the table; there was zero indication that happened before.
So why is that information coming out now? Is it a way of prepping for negotiations between the two sides? Or is it the first part of a public relations campaign by the Pats? Perhaps they know that it is inevitable that they will soon lose one of their most popular veterans, and this is the first subtle message being sent out that they imply 'hey, we tried to sign; we wanted him back; we were on the up-and-up and made him a fair offer; don't blame us'.
Now I have no evidence to prove that is the case, but let's face it: over the years the Pats have taken a beating in the court of public opinion from the media and fans for letting several veterans go, and many of their contract negotiations with veteran players have become ugly. Besides the media and the fans, they may want to smooth things over with other players like Tom Brady if Light - let's not forget he's the team's player rep - is not coming back too. And I'm not saying they were wrong to let players like Vrabel, Vinatieri, McGinest, Law, Samuel or others leave; in fact, more often than not it turned out to be the right decision. I just think the organization has at times used the media for their benefit, and that the timing of this information - presumably just a few days before free agency starts and Light could be re-signed - is more than a coincidence.
I think it's interesting that the only thing we previously heard about Matt Light's contract was that the two sides agreed months ago to wait until there was a new CBA before working on a new deal. Now that we're apparently on the doorstep of a new CBA, news comes out that the Pats made an offer and Light turned it down?
If Light goes out, bright talent steps in - The Boston Globe
I realize those two things are not mutually exclusive - perhaps the two sides were negotiating, couldn't come to terms, and then both agreed to wait until the new CBA was in place rather than to continue negotiating. However, I do find it odd that we only find out now that an offer was previously placed on the table; there was zero indication that happened before.
So why is that information coming out now? Is it a way of prepping for negotiations between the two sides? Or is it the first part of a public relations campaign by the Pats? Perhaps they know that it is inevitable that they will soon lose one of their most popular veterans, and this is the first subtle message being sent out that they imply 'hey, we tried to sign; we wanted him back; we were on the up-and-up and made him a fair offer; don't blame us'.
Now I have no evidence to prove that is the case, but let's face it: over the years the Pats have taken a beating in the court of public opinion from the media and fans for letting several veterans go, and many of their contract negotiations with veteran players have become ugly. Besides the media and the fans, they may want to smooth things over with other players like Tom Brady if Light - let's not forget he's the team's player rep - is not coming back too. And I'm not saying they were wrong to let players like Vrabel, Vinatieri, McGinest, Law, Samuel or others leave; in fact, more often than not it turned out to be the right decision. I just think the organization has at times used the media for their benefit, and that the timing of this information - presumably just a few days before free agency starts and Light could be re-signed - is more than a coincidence.
Last edited: